The Pianist is a famous story of one man’s incredible journey through the Holocaust, Wladyslaw Szpilman. However, it is important to note the vast differences in the film, created by Roman Polanski, and the memoir, written by Szpilman himself. Some of these differences can be traced back to fundamental differences between literature and film; literature has the ability to tell a story from one person’s particular point of view, especially in memoirs, which is exactly what The Pianist does. Films can do the same to a certain extent; however, portraying a particular character’s inner thoughts and feelings is more difficult.
There was one scene in my mind which stood out in the movie, which was actually where the movie began but slightly different as to where the book began. Szpilman is playing the piano on Warsaw radio, presumably for the final time, since the Nazi attacks are impending. I believe the movie started at this point in an attempt to give the perspective that the book gave all along: the perspective of Szpilman’s inner thoughts and emotions. Of course, a book, particularly a memoir, will give a much more in depth experience than a movie ever could. For example, in the very first paragraph, Szpilman says, “…and my awareness that the whole family depended on what I could earn gradually helped me to overcome my previous state of hopelessness and despair.” This is exactly the kind of perspective that only a memoir could offer. To try and portray these kinds of complicated thoughts and emotions on screen would take a considerable amount of time and money, as Katie Campbell pointed out in her blog post.
I believe that together, both forms are most beneficial. Books are important in that they help the reader have a more in depth understanding of the thoughts and feelings behind the actions of the story teller. In a personal memoir, I feel this is especially important; since the storyteller is also the main character, there is a significant personal connection in telling the story, which can benefit the reader immensely.
With regards to movies, many people, including myself, respond and understand visual aids better, and can really relate to the storyteller if the story is being told on screen, since one can “see” the actual emotions and feelings being expressed. Granted, in many movies, what happens in a book-to-film adaptation completely disregards the original story. However, I do not feel like this was the case in The Pianist. By viewing the movie and reading the book, I have a better understanding of the story as a whole.
I agree with you completely on the vast differences there are between the two roles of literature and film both are beneficial to the telling of Szpilman's story and therefore quite difficult to compare to one another. I myself found it quite difficult to look at the novel and the film as the same story even though plot wise they are exactly the same.
ReplyDeleteFor one, as you already mentioned we as readers can understand from Szpilman's own words his emotional turmoil and the inner thoughts which could never be recreated for a film nor should it.As film itself was never functioned as a vehicle for creating complexity.Film relies on it's superficiality to depict stories to viewers just as if the viewer was experiencing it themselves.It is this inaudible quality of film which makes it perfect for storytelling.
Book on the other hand rely on its ability to convey the complexities of one's mind to another and unlike films whose impact lasts for just as long as the movie knowledge sustained from a book is meant to last forever.